Fractals, Vol. 7, No.

1 (1999) 79–84

c World Scientific Publishing Company

SELF-SIMILARITY AND THE GEOMETRIC

REQUIREMENTS FOR FREQUENCY
INDEPENDENCE IN ANTENNAE

ROBERT G. HOHLFELD
Center for Computational Science, Boston University,
3 Cummington St., Boston MA 02215, USA
NATHAN COHEN
Fractal Antenna Systems, Inc. 2 Ledgewood Place, Belmont, MA 02478, USA
Science and Engineering Program, Boston University, Boston MA 02215, USA

Received December 20, 1998; Accepted January 17, 1999

Abstract
Self-similarity and origin symmetry are shown to be the key geometric constraints in the de-
termination of frequency independent properties of antennae. Fractal antennae with origin
symmetry meet these criteria of the extended version of Rumsey’s principle. Frequency inde-
pendence is not achieved by self-similarity alone. Self-complementarity plays no role in fre-
quency independence, but does aid in smoothing out impedance variations for coarsely iterated
frequency independent antennae. New families of practical designs arise from these geometric
insights, which need not follow the usual constraints of angle-defined structure of the original
Rumsey’s principle.

1. INTRODUCTION to frequency independent antennae.3–6 Cohen7,8

Frequency independent antennae are often consid-
ered to be desirable because of their invariance of
impedance, gain and power pattern with frequency.
They have long been associated with geometric cri-
teria based upon construction from angles1 and
self-complementarity.2 Recently, fractal geometry
from self-similarity was shown to have relevance
showed that such deterministic fractals could pro-
duce extremely broad bandwidths usually ascribed
to self-complementarity. However, he also showed8
that self-similarity is not a sufficient geometric crite-
rion for frequency independence. He noted that the
additional constraint of origin symmetry provided a
new set of frequency independent examples without
the requirements of angular definition (apex angles)

79
80 R. G. Hohlfeld & N. Cohen
or self-complementarity. These results have moti-
vated the analysis here, which demonstrates that
origin symmetric, deterministic fractal structures
meet the requirements of frequency independence.
2. SCALING AND SYMMETRY
Following Rumsey,1 we show how frequency inde-
pendent behavior is constrained by the nature of
Maxwell’s equations. We assume time dependence
of physical quantities is proportional to ejωt and
take ε and µ as the permittivity and permeability
of the medium around the antenna. The form of
the curl equations is then:
∇ × E = −jωµH
(1)
∇ × H = jωεE
for a lossless medium with µ and ε independent of
frequency. Since we are in the medium external to
the antenna, no current term appears in the ∇ × E
equation. Make the usual definitions for wave num-
ber and impedance,
√
k = ω µε = 2π/λ
p (2)
Z0 = µ/ε .
Finally, express the spatial coordinates in Maxwell’s
equations in units of the wavelength λ, i.e. x = λx0 ,
y = λy 0 and z = λz 0 . We obtain the resulting form
of Maxwell’s equations:
∇0 × E = −Z0 H
(3)
∇0 × H = Z0−1 E
which is independent of ω. Here ∇0 × denotes the
curl operation in coordinates scaled in units of the
wavelength.
These equations can be shown to be frequency
independent by application of a scaling property of
Maxwell’s equations. A particular solution for the
fields generated by the antenna (i.e. a particular
value for the antenna impedance and the particular
solution for the gain pattern of the antenna) may
be scaled in its spatial coordinates by a factor of
s, with the frequency simultaneously scaled by a
factor of 1/s, i.e.
x → sx and ω → ω/s . (4)
These combined transformations leave Eq. (3) the
same.
Alternatively, we may explicitly show the invari-
ance of Maxwell’s equation with respect to the scal-
ing transformation of Eq. (4) by using the original
form of Eq. (1). If the transformation is applied to
a derivative operator, one obtains derivatives such
as ∂/∂(sx) = (1/s)∂/∂x and similar ones for other
coordinates. Therefore, the curl operation ∇× is
transformed to (1/s)∇×. Since the scaling trans-
formation also takes ω to ω/s, the scaled form of
Maxwell’s equations becomes
   
1 ω
∇ × E = −j µH
s s
    (5)
1 ω
∇×H=j εE
s s
and since 1/s may be removed as an algebraic fac-
tor, the original form of Maxwell’s equations in
Eq. (1) is recovered.
3. DISCUSSION
Rumsey explored this scaling for 0 < s < ∞.
However, the scaling admitted by Maxwell’s equa-
tions is larger than that considered by Rumsey.
Negative values of s may also be accommodated.
These correspond to: (1) an inversion of the spa-
tial coordinates defining the antenna combined with
(2) a mapping to a negative frequency, i.e. a time
reversal. This transformation corresponds to the
well-known symmetry of Maxwell’s equations under
these combined operations.9 We shall refer to this
more general case of 0 < |s| < ∞ as the “extended
Rumsey scaling principle”. While the frequency
independent antennae considered by Rumsey1 all
properly satisfy this extended scaling principle,
there are large classes of new designs which come
to light from the extended principle.
The original Rumsey principle was applied ex-
actly to classes of antennae which are characterized
by an angle only and so do not exhibit an intrin-
sic scale length: for example, spiral antennae in
a plane and on the surface of a cone. However,
as Rumsey originally pointed out, practical anten-
nae that are approximately scale invariant can be
approximately frequency independent over a useful
frequency range. In particular, antennae character-
ized by an apex angle that replicate their geometries
on discrete scale lengths, with tolerable variation in
antenna properties for intermediate scale lengths,
are approximately frequency independent. Further-
more, the variation in antenna properties over one

scale length is scaled inversely with frequency over
successive scale lengths, as required by Eq. (4).
Rumsey originally applied this discrete scaling
behavior for the log-periodic and related anten-
nae. The antennae considered by Rumsey were all
characterized in terms of an angle, as suggested
by the scaling transformation for positive values
of s. However, the discrete scaling in length is
also characteristic of many deterministic fractals.10
The scaling fractals that have been studied for ap-
plications as antennae obey the similarity trans-
formation on point sets described by Mandelbrot,
to wit: for E-dimensional real Euclidean space
RE , a point of the space x = (x1 , . . . , xδ , . . . , xE )
is mapped by a similarity transformation charac-
terized by a real scaling parameter r to a point
r(x) = (rx1 , . . . , rxδ , . . . , rxE ). This is merely
the spatial part of the scaling transformation of
Eq. (4) obtained as a condition for frequency in-
dependence from Maxwell’s equations. The partic-
ular case of fractal Koch curves, which we use as an
example below, is proved to possess self-similarity
in Mandelbrot’s book and in more explicit detail
by Lauwerier.11 Log-periodic, spiral antennae and
other antennae constructed based on Rumsey’s orig-
inal treatment are special cases of fractal antennae
because of their spatial scaling properties.
It has been found by counter-example that self-
similarity does not, in itself, provide for frequency
independence.8 In this context, it is salient to note
that Eq. (4) must be viewed as possessing an addi-
tional constraint which is imposed on a fractal an-
tenna to guarantee that it will be (approximately)
frequency independent. Essentially, Eq. (4) imposes
a requirement that a fractal must be origin sym-
metric in the xy plane, to satisfy the symmetry re-
quirements arising from the spatial and temporal
symmetries of Maxwell’s requirements, in addition
to the scale invariance properties arising from the
fractal character of the antenna. The requirement
of origin symmetry arises from our extension of the
scaling transformation to include both positive and
negative values of s. This may be seen, for exam-
ple, by choosing s = −1 in Eq. (4) which then de-
scribes a transformation, such that any point (x, y)
is mapped to (−x, −y), leaving the origin invariant.
It is sufficient for our purposes to consider
two-dimensional configurations because a three-
dimensional antenna field configuration shares its
frequency independence and scaling properties with
the equivalent projected two-dimensional configura-
tion, due to the constraints in the solution of three-
Frequency Independent Antennae 81
dimensional boundary value problems. (As an ex-
ample, consider the relationship between the three-
dimensional cone antenna and its projection onto
the plane as a spiral antenna.1,2 )
The requirements arising from Eq. (4) are fairly
restrictive in practice. The current distribution
must be preserved exactly, i.e. the equation describ-
ing the current distribution in three-dimensional
space must be invariant under the scaling trans-
formation. It is not sufficient that the current dis-
tribution of the antenna be mapped into a similar
geometric form: self-similarity is not, in itself, able
to produce frequency independence.
Equation (4), together with rotations of the an-
tenna, exhausts all the available isometries of three-
dimensional Euclidean space.12,13 Thus, from group
theory, we do not expect the existence of further
symmetry properties that lead to frequency inde-
pendent behavior of an antenna (in the restrictive
sense of exhibiting frequency independence of both
the antenna’s impedance and gain pattern). Since
every group leaves one point invariant, it is natural
to make that point the origin in one’s coordinate
system of a physical problem. This is done in each
of the antennae considered in detail in this paper.
We illustrate the application of the scaling trans-
formation in Fig. 1. We show schematically anten-
nae implemented in the plane, with current flow
into the antenna element indicated by the “circle
with dot” and current flow out of the antenna ele-
ment indicated by the “circle with cross”. Figure 1
shows the transformation of antennae under the in-
version scaling, s = −1. Scaling in discrete steps in
the scale size of the fractal generator follows nat-
urally, and has been treated in other papers (see
e.g. Refs. 7 and 8). We shall separate the spatial
inversion step in the transformation from the time
reversal (frequency goes to negative frequency) step
for clarity.
The first case treated in Fig. 1(a) shows the trans-
formation operating on a linear, dipole antenna.
The net result of the two steps, spatial inversion
and time reversal, is to map the current distribu-
tion back into the original current distribution case
identically. This case of course does not satisfy the
full requirements for frequency independence, de-
spite satisfying spatial inversion with time reversal
symmetry, because the dipole antenna has only a
single discrete scale length. Therefore, the scaling
transformation cannot be applied for |s| 6= 1.
The second case is an antenna we call the Reflec-
tion Symmetric Koch Dipole (RSKD). In Fig. 1(b)
82 R. G. Hohlfeld & N. Cohen

x → -x t → -t
a ) D ip o le A n ten na

b) RSK D

c) OSK D

Fig. 1 Three examples of antennae showing the operation of the scaling transformation of Eq. (4) for the case of s = −1.
The spatial inversion x → −x is separated from the time reversal t → −t for clarity. (a) The scaling operations apply to
a dipole antenna. This antenna is not frequency independent because it possesses an intrinsic scale length, but it is shown
that the current distribution is mapped back into itself by the scaling transformation. (b) The Reflection Symmetric Koch
Dipole (RSKD) is shown, with only two iterations of the fractal generator shown for clarity. The spatial inversion maps the
extensions of the RSKD from the +y direction into the −y direction and thus this antenna fails to satisfy the requirements of
the scaling transformation and is not frequency independent. (c) The Origin Symmetric Koch Dipole (OSKD) is also shown
with only two iterations of the fractal generator for clarity. In this case, spatial inversion and time reversal map the antenna
back into itself identically and thus this antenna satisfies the requirements for frequency independence.

we show the RSKD, with only two generations
of the fractal geometry shown for clarity in our
simple sketch. Note that the structures extend-
ing into the +y direction are mapped into the −y
direction by the spatial inversion part of the trans-
formation. Therefore, the RSKD fails the require-
ments of our analysis for frequency independence
because the current distribution is not mapped into
the identical current distribution by the scaling
transformation.
Lastly, we show in Fig. 1(c), another fractal
dipole antenna based on the Koch fractal,7 which
we call the Origin Symmetric Koch Dipole (OSKD).
Again, we only show two generations of the fractal
for clarity, sufficient to illustrate the required sym-
metry properties. The spatial inversion maps the
antenna directly onto itself (also equivalent to a ro-
tation by 180◦ ) and the time reversal changes the
sense of the current flow, which yields the initial
current distribution identically. Thus, the OSKD
satisfies the scaling transformation required for fre-
quency dependence for s = ±1 and multiples of the
discrete fractal scale length.
Now, we shall consider three fractal antenna
dipoles which are origin symmetric. Figure 2 il-
lustrates the three schematic dipole representations
which meet the discrete criteria of the extended
Rumsey principle. Figure 2(a) shows the first fre-
quency independent antenna, found by Isbell and
DuHamel14 : a toothed fractal, defined by apex an-
gles, and a self-complementary arrangement. It is
clearly origin symmetric. From a geometric stand-
point, one must consider this antenna as overcon-
strained from the point of view of the extended
Rumsey principle, although the nature of this over-
constraint is explained shortly. Figure 2(b) shows
a Sierpinski bow tie, consisting of two Sierpinski
triangles. This antenna is identical in attributes,
except for the value of the invariant impedance, to
the frequency independent Sierpinski monopole.4,5
Geometrically, it is fractal; defined by an
apex angle and origin symmetric. However, this
is an example of an antenna that lacks self-
complementarity and demonstrates the well-known
result that Rumsey’s principle does not need to in-
voke self-complementary design.14

Fig. 2 (a) Overconstrained Isbell-DuHamel fractal dipole
antenna with self-complementarity; (b) Sierpinski “bowtie”
dipole; (c) Koch dipole. Circle indicates feedpoint. All an-
tennae are self-similar and origin symmetric; (c) is both only.
The third antenna, in Fig. 2(c), is an origin
symmetric Koch dipole. It meets the conditions
of the extended Rumsey principle, yet is not self-
complementary and is not defined by apex angles.
It does possess self-similarity and origin symmetry.
However, it will not be a design which meets the cri-
terion of the original Rumsey’s principle. Thus, one
sees that new avenues of frequency independent an-
tenna design are afforded by this extended Rumsey
principle.
Lastly, one must inspect Fig. 2 to understand
the nature of self-complementarity to frequency in-
dependent antennae. Babinet’s principle provides
that self-complementary structures, whether com-
plex or simple, will have a continuously invariant
impedance attribute.14 It should be noted that this
invariance applies to impedance only and not gain
Frequency Independent Antennae 83
or power pattern. Thus, any antenna geometries
will possess this continuous impedance invariance if
they are self-complementary. The effect on the an-
tenna of Fig. 2(a) is to smooth out the impedance
variations produced by the coarsely iterated self-
similar tooth structure. Impedance smoothing is
the one and only effect and advantage to self-
complementarity. Sufficient use of fractal iterations
has the same result.7
Indeed, the antenna of Fig. 2(b) is an excellent
example of an origin symmetric fractal that does not
use self-complementarity. It produces discrete fre-
quency independent features,3 at least in its lower
frequency range, which will thus appear to be ves-
tiges of discreteness from a small number of fractal
iterations.
4. CONCLUSIONS
We may now summarize our results: Equation (4),
which expresses scale invariance of an antenna, is
generalized to include spatial inversions and time
reversals through the range 0 < |s| < ∞. This is
a necessary and sufficient condition for an antenna
to be frequency independent in both its impedance
and gain pattern. If s is treated as a continu-
ous variable, frequency independent antennae char-
acterized only by an angle such as planar spirals
and spiral cones are allowed. If s is allowed to
be a discrete set of values, a frequency indepen-
dent subset of the set of fractal antennae is al-
lowed. This subset is origin symmetric and will
not be strictly frequency independent for scale sizes
intermediate to their fractal scale length, but are
often sufficiently frequency independent in practice
for most applications. This approximate frequency
independence may have an enhanced smoothness of
impedance variations by also enforcing the geomet-
ric constraint of self-complementarity. In any event,
this subset’s frequency independence will be repli-
cated on successive fractal scales in frequency, as re-
quired by Eq. (4). Lastly, this analysis permits us to
readily determine whether a given fractal antenna
can be expected to show frequency independence,
thereby redefining the general criteria in antenna
design for frequency independence.
REFERENCES
1. V. H. Rumsey, Frequency Independent Antenna
(Academic Press, New York and London, 1966).
84 R. G. Hohlfeld & N. Cohen
2. Y. Mushiake, Self-Complementary Antennas
(Springer-Verlag, London, 1996).
3. C. Puente, J. Romeau, R. Pous, X. Garcia and
F. Benitez, IEE Electronics Letters 32(1), 1–2
(1996).
4. C. Puente and R. Pous, IEEE Trans. Antennas
Propagat. 44(5), 730–739 (1996).
5. C. Puente, J. Romeau, R. Pous and A. Cardama, in
Fractals in Engineering, eds. J. L Véhel, E. Lutton
and C. Tricot (Springer, London, 1997), pp. 222–236.
6. D. H. Werner and P. L. Werner, Radio Science 31(6),
13331–1343 (1996).
7. N. Cohen, Applied Computational Electromagnetics
Society Newsletter 13(2), 23–27 (1998).
8. N. Cohen, Proc. 15th Meeting of the Applied Com-
putational Electromagnetics Society (in press, 1999).
9. J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics 2nd ed.
(Wiley, New York, 1975).
10. B. B. Mandelbrot, The Fractal Geometry of Nature
(W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1977).
11. H. Lauwerier, Fractals: Endlessly Repeated Geomet-
rical Figures (Princeton University Press, Princeton
NJ, 1991).
12. H. S. M. Coxeter, Introduction to Geometry, 2nd ed.
(Wiley, New York, 1969).
13. D. J. S. Robinson, A Course in the Theory of Groups
(Springer-Verlag, New York, 1993).
14. J. Kraus, Antennas (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1988).